Thai Democrat MP Khanchit Sought In Murder Case

[animatic]

If one has put out a contract on the other for example,

there is no getting the police to do any protection based on no real facts,

but maybe he thought to 'get them first, before they get you' kind of thing...

but that is supposition of one possibility.

I am actually at a loss to understand how you can read ANY support for their actions into my comment. There IS NONE. It says no more than 'there is likely more to the story that we know.'

Please explain to me the reason for delivering fabricated supposition, is mitigation not a form of support?

No it's not. And it wasn't mitigation, it was observation.

Nothing was fabricated to make it seem as fact.

Stop attempting to twist my words, you are not good at it.

Edited January 8, 2012 by animatic

[473geo]

If one has put out a contract on the other for example,

there is no getting the police to do any protection based on no real facts,

but maybe he thought to 'get them first, before they get you' kind of thing...

but that is supposition of one possibility.

I am actually at a loss to understand how you can read ANY support for their actions into my comment. There IS NONE. It says no more than 'there is likely more to the story that we know.'

Please explain to me the reason for delivering fabricated supposition, is mitigation not a form of support?

No it's not. And it wasn't mitigation, it was observation.

Nothing was fabricated to make it seem as fact.

Stop attempting to twist my words, you are not good at it.

"But that is supposition"...........your words......how does that translate into "observation"

[animatic]

If one has put out a contract on the other for example,

there is no getting the police to do any protection based on no real facts,

but maybe he thought to 'get them first, before they get you' kind of thing...

but that is supposition of one possibility.

I am actually at a loss to understand how you can read ANY support for their actions into my comment. There IS NONE. It says no more than 'there is likely more to the story that we know.'

Please explain to me the reason for delivering fabricated supposition, is mitigation not a form of support?

No it's not. And it wasn't mitigation, it was observation.

Nothing was fabricated to make it seem as fact.

Stop attempting to twist my words, you are not good at it.

"But that is supposition"...........your words......how does that translate into "observation"

It means that it is observable that more than one possibility is possible.

With an example of the possible given.

Which is inverse to the monochromatic view held by several in this thread.

Edited January 8, 2012 by animatic

[scorecard]

At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

Just so we know, for what crimes should a party remove an MP from the caucus? And for what major crimes should they not?

In my opinion any MP that is above questioned, aka charged with a crime, that can lead to a prison-term of longer than 2 years, should by himself step down 'to focus on the trial' and the party remove him from the caucus. But I also oppose the notion that MPs should have any form of immunity...

Any reply to this yet?

I just want to make sure we are not going to have any double-standards here and I apply equal damning critic to all sides.

I have already replied. Any MP accused of premeditated murder should excuse him/herself from his/her respective caucus until the charges are cleared. If the MP does not excuse him/herself, then the party must do so. Such an action is not an accusation of guilty, but is intended to preserve the integrity of the political party.

In respect to political activities that may involve legal proceedings, each case requires individual attention. For example, former PM Abhisit is accused of illegal activities and improprieties included the alleged ordering of the killing of some protestors. As these accusations are political in nature and relate to his conduct as PM and as a politician, I would not expect him to resign from caucus. Trust this explains my position.

So g'kid, when jaruporn was striiring up insurection and burning of massive amounts of public property, etc, was exempted from reporting to police because he was an MP, did you speak up about that? Or ae you going to be selective and just include murder?

Edited January 8, 2012 by scorecard

[scorecard]

No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes.

If you live in a glass house P don't throw stones, you'll get cut by the shards.

Your logic is that because you perceive the Redshirts to have done wrong, that it is ok for an alleged cold blooded killer to sit in the Democrat caucus. Need I remind you of Mr. Abhisit's repeated statements on the need for honesty and ethics? What bigger fail on the subject than to allow an alleged brutal murderer to remain in caucus. The right thing to do is to ask the MP to withdraw until he is cleared. This thread is not about Redshirts. it concerns an MP that is alleged to have planned a murder and then shot the victim in the head. The refusal of Mr. abhisit to remove the man from the caucus is nothing short of tacit support for the accused. Mr. Abhisit has demonstrated once again that he talks alot but can't meet the standards he demands of others.

Ah but you are going for the hang em high approach on this case,

and makes it proper for comparison to your past comments defending

PTP and Redshirt suspects. Or do you subscribe to double standards yet again?

There is more than enough publicly viewable evidences to support my conclusion,

the context for which that you have EDITED OUT of this continuation of the discussion.

And by using your logic, such as it is, then the redshirts MP's

and the PTP MPs who colluded with them,

as caught on video and pictures and public statements,

should all be asked to step down till their cases are properly adjudicated.

And that is likely enough to remove parliamentary advantage.

There is no hanging high sentiment expressed on my part, nor have I edited out any of your comments.

How can you justify the Democrats retaining an alleged murderer in caucus?

The issue here is one of the Democrats staking out the higher moral ground yet failing to act on their statements of ethics and integrity.

In respect to the Redshirts, they are not a political party in the house that has made the same claims to morality as has Mr. Abhisit and the Democrats. At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

Very convenient comment about the red shirst g'kid. makes me laugh.

And I ask you, did you make similar statements when your idol was supervising the extrajudicial killing of some 2,500 Thai citizens, with no recourse to any form whatever of justice, and did you speak out in the same vein when som 250 young Southern Thais were suffocated to death on the watch of your idol? Did you speak out and demand that your idol be removed from his position?

And please don't say 'but many people supported that action.' Which way do you want it : the law applied with equal force to all, or just to some?

And I'm quessing that coming soon we'll see your threats again aimed at people who speak out against your idol - the champion of democracy and justice.

Edited January 8, 2012 by scorecard

[TAWP]

And I ask you, did you make similar statements when your idol was supervising the extrajudicial killing of some 2,500 Thai citizens, with no recourse to any form whatever of justice, and did you speak out in the same vein when som 250 young Southern Thais were suffocated to death on the watch of your idol? Did you speak out and demand that your idol be removed from his position?

I think it was 87 or 78 that suffocated on that one truck. Yes, more was killed in other actions too.

But yes, some posters only care about some citizens here.

Edited January 8, 2012 by TAWP

[scorecard]

And I ask you, did you make similar statements when your idol was supervising the extrajudicial killing of some 2,500 Thai citizens, with no recourse to any form whatever of justice, and did you speak out in the same vein when som 250 young Southern Thais were suffocated to death on the watch of your idol? Did you speak out and demand that your idol be removed from his position?

I think it was 87 or 78 that suffocated on that one truck. Yes, more was killed in other actions too.

But yes, some posters only care about some citizens here.

My apology, I stand corrected, about 80 young Thais suffocated to death, not 250.

[Buchholz]

Just so we know, for what crimes should a party remove an MP from the caucus? And for what major crimes should they not?

In my opinion any MP that is above questioned, aka charged with a crime, that can lead to a prison-term of longer than 2 years, should by himself step down 'to focus on the trial' and the party remove him from the caucus. But I also oppose the notion that MPs should have any form of immunity...

Any reply to this yet?

I just want to make sure we are not going to have any double-standards here and I apply equal damning critic to all sides.

Do you mean like capital crimes where the Red Shirt defendants are facing the death penalty for their shenanigans?

,

That's not the first time you've mentioned the death sentence. Are you looking forward to that Buchholz? Do you really want it to get to that stage, I've got a feeling you do? Do you think they deserve the death penalty? All on the words of one man who used the throwaway (in this post 9/11 world war on terror) label of terrorist. The same man who refers to the 4000 odd murders in the south of the country as being the work of insurgents?

My mentioning of the death penalty possibility is simply to state what the factual potentials are. This is to show they are as severe as the charges that the Democrat MP faces. It is said to reply geriatrickid's insistence for the removal of the Democrat MP for a serious crime. It is said only that what his standard is good for one, it is good for all that face the same consequences for their alleged criminal activity.

As for your babbling nonsense about what my personal feelings are regarding the imposition of the death penalty is nothing more than misfiring neurons occurring inside your cranium.

Your perceived fantasies interfere with the distribution of factual statements. Please spare the forum readers and simply focus on what people write in brief one sentence truisms, not that imagined paragraphs your insert after them.

.

[ballpoint]

And I ask you, did you make similar statements when your idol was supervising the extrajudicial killing of some 2,500 Thai citizens, with no recourse to any form whatever of justice, and did you speak out in the same vein when som 250 young Southern Thais were suffocated to death on the watch of your idol? Did you speak out and demand that your idol be removed from his position?

I think it was 87 or 78 that suffocated on that one truck. Yes, more was killed in other actions too.

But yes, some posters only care about some citizens here.

My apology, I stand corrected, about 80 young Thais suffocated to death, not 250.

78 suffocated, spread over a number of trucks.

A total of 78 detained protesters died during transportation. The military report revealed details of the deaths in each truck as follows:

Truck with Army Licence Plate No 19338, 21 detainees killed

Truck with Army Licence Plate No 19232, 5 detainees killed

Truck with Army Licence Plate No 19263, 6 detainees killed

Truck with Army Licence Plate No 13164, 23 detainees killed

Truck with Marine Licence Plate No 531, 5 detainees killed

Truck with Marine Licence Plate No 5256, one detainee killed

Truck with Marine Licence Plate No 530, six detainees killed.

Eleven other detainees died in trucks whose licence numbers could not be identified.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/takbai/p1.htm

An additional 7 were killed by gunshots during the initial protest.

[473geo]

But is this suffocation not a military cock up?

[scorecard]

But is this suffocation not a military cock up?

You seem to float between creating diversions when you can't answer and downright stirring.

Given your last answer, is that supposed to mean that leaders should not show repsonsibility?

Wonder how g'kid would interprete that given his recent comments about about how abhisit should be taking resposnibility.

[473geo]

But is this suffocation not a military cock up?

You seem to float between creating diversions when you can't answer and downright stirring.

Given your last answer, is that supposed to mean that leaders should not show repsonsibility?

Wonder how g'kid would interprete that given his recent comments about about how abhisit should be taking resposnibility.

Was it? or not?

[scorecard]

But is this suffocation not a military cock up?

You seem to float between creating diversions when you can't answer and downright stirring.

Given your last answer, is that supposed to mean that leaders should not show repsonsibility?

Wonder how g'kid would interprete that given his recent comments about about how abhisit should be taking resposnibility.

Was it? or not?

Well there is the argument that one of the duties and respsonsibilities of the Thai PM (any PM) to the citizens is to ensure that people posted to high positions are highly capable in every sense and would therefore not dream up strategies whereby 80 odd people lost their lives through suffocation, or put it the other way, would have known that the way the trucks were loaded was highly dangerous and a death trap, and therefore would have immediately abandoned this idea. If the people apointed to such high positions do in fact act in a very derelict, disgracefully derelict, totally immoral way then surely the PM has to answer some very serious questions about why these people are in these positions - should be held responsibile.

Not a difficult concept.

[TAWP]

No-matter if we decide if the buck stops with PM or not, the PM didn't have to make up inane excuses as to why the arrested people suffocated...that was really proving where his interest in dealing with things in a legal fashion became apparent.

[scorecard]

No-matter if we decide if the buck stops with PM or not, the PM didn't have to make up inane excuses as to why the arrested people suffocated...that was really proving where his interest in dealing with things in a legal fashion became apparent.

Good point.

[phiphidon]

But is this suffocation not a military cock up?

You seem to float between creating diversions when you can't answer and downright stirring.

Given your last answer, is that supposed to mean that leaders should not show repsonsibility?

Wonder how g'kid would interprete that given his recent comments about about how abhisit should be taking resposnibility.

Was it? or not?

Well there is the argument that one of the duties and respsonsibilities of the Thai PM (any PM) to the citizens is to ensure that people posted to high positions are highly capable in every sense and would therefore not dream up strategies whereby 80 odd people lost their lives through suffocation, or put it the other way, would have known that the way the trucks were loaded was highly dangerous and a death trap, and therefore would have immediately abandoned this idea. If the people apointed to such high positions do in fact act in a very derelict, disgracefully derelict, totally immoral way then surely the PM has to answer some very serious questions about why these people are in these positions - should be held responsibile.

Not a difficult concept.

I'm not sure whether this would be an argument in favour of or against more political control on Armed Forces Promotions especially the Army. If you had more control over the Army presumably you could get rid of idiots that think stacking of people in army trucks like firewood is a good idea - but it seems as though they will go their own way anyway, always playing that loyalty card they keep for special occasions. Maybe we'll see what happens if Abhisit ever does have to face up to responsibility what cards will be played then.

[473geo]

Is it true that there is no disciplinary penalty for those holding the rank of general.

Might explain the lack of action as I understand 3 generals may have been found liable

[473geo]

No-matter if we decide if the buck stops with PM or not, the PM didn't have to make up inane excuses as to why the arrested people suffocated...that was really proving where his interest in dealing with things in a legal fashion became apparent.

Good point.

Bit of a desperate stretch from a stupid comment to attempting to apportion blame for multiple deaths don't you think?

[TAWP]

No-matter if we decide if the buck stops with PM or not, the PM didn't have to make up inane excuses as to why the arrested people suffocated...that was really proving where his interest in dealing with things in a legal fashion became apparent.

Good point.

Bit of a desperate stretch from a stupid comment to attempting to apportion blame for multiple deaths don't you think?

I am not sure you are getting it.

Either the PM is responsible for the military's actions or he/she isn't.

It seems some think he/she is when the political party in power is someone they dislike, otherwise not.

So until we reach a conclusion for that debate, in the meantime, I would say that a PM that tries to whitewash the deaths by claiming it was the protesters own fault based on a religious practice of only eating after dark - hence that they was physically weak - lead to them dying by being stacked on-top of each-other as oppose to agreeing that people dying from being stacked ontop of each-other is a disgrace and needed to be investigated. Which meant that the PM's office at that time had no interest in investigating the case or find who's fault it was, even if it wasn't the PMs.

[473geo]

Actually the discussion is about the PM being responsible for action concerning an MP accused of murder........

And for some inexplicable reason there are those trying to bring into the discussion ill concieved comparrison, I am just pointing out how ill conceived the attempted comparrison is

[473geo]

No-matter if we decide if the buck stops with PM or not, the PM didn't have to make up inane excuses as to why the arrested people suffocated...that was really proving where his interest in dealing with things in a legal fashion became apparent.

Good point.

Bit of a desperate stretch from a stupid comment to attempting to apportion blame for multiple deaths don't you think?

I am not sure you are getting it.

Either the PM is responsible for the military's actions or he/she isn't.

It seems some think he/she is when the political party in power is someone they dislike, otherwise not.

So until we reach a conclusion for that debate, in the meantime, I would say that a PM that tries to whitewash the deaths by claiming it was the protesters own fault based on a religious practice of only eating after dark - hence that they was physically weak - lead to them dying by being stacked on-top of each-other as oppose to agreeing that people dying from being stacked ontop of each-other is a disgrace and needed to be investigated. Which meant that the PM's office at that time had no interest in investigating the case or find who's fault it was, even if it wasn't the PMs.

You really need to look into the 'investigation' and take on board my question and comment in post #137........you are trying too hard to pin the blame where you wish to place it

Edited January 8, 2012 by 473geo

[TAWP]

Either the PM is the responsible person for the military's actions or he/she isn't.

Make up your minds.

And again we end up off-topic.

Edited January 8, 2012 by TAWP

[473geo]

Either the PM is the responsible person for the military's actions or he/she isn't.

Make up your minds.

And again we end up off-topic.

Given that the comments following a coup are usually that the military are in place to protect the well being of the country, then could any prime minister be forgiven for thinking their actions adhere to this policy?

[Siam Simon]

Either the PM is the responsible person for the military's actions or he/she isn't. Make up your minds. And again we end up off-topic.

I'll make up my mind after thorough investigations have taken place. I'll leave the shouty rhetoric to others. Btw, what happened to the army commanders at the helm of the Tak Bai atrocity? Was it similar to what happened to the murdering commanders at the helm of the Krue Se atrocity? I believe one of those has since been flirting around various Bangkok political factions, and another has been organising the abuse of Rohingya refugees. And what did Abhisit do about the latter when he was PM, other than lie to the international media? Amazing Thailand.

[nurofiend]

why is there such a blackout on this?

last thing i can find is that he was meant to be up in court on july 19th.

i can't find a single thing about it, what happened in the court or anything since.

does anyone have any info that i'm not seeing?

[TheKrayTriplet]

why is there such a blackout on this?

last thing i can find is that he was meant to be up in court on july 19th.

i can't find a single thing about it, what happened in the court or anything since.

does anyone have any info that i'm not seeing?

Other than the other paper confirming what you say, no. He is out on bail after using his MP status as collateral. Presumably there will be outraged calls in public and on this forum for Abhisit to take action over his MP, indicted for pre-meditated murder (only

10

eyewitnesses).

In fact I would expect the clamour to be far louder than that for Jeng Dokchik, considering the severity of the sentence. In fact, I can't wait for all the calls for Abhisit to even say something about the case